Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Student Engagement in Active Learning Classes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Active Learning in College Science

Abstract

As the evidence for the value of active learning in STEM classes grows, questions arise about how to implement such approaches to maximize their effectiveness. Definitions of active learning can lead us to believe that if students are doing content-related work in class rather than listening to lecture, their learning will naturally be improved. But research has shown that this is not necessarily the case. Successful active learning strategies in face-to-face classes depend on a multitude of factors, including question and activity design, faculty prompts, student incentives for participation, and group dynamics. In this chapter I discuss what research suggests is a key underlying reason that these factors impact the results of active learning approaches—their effect on the level of students’ cognitive engagement. In this chapter, I discuss the ICAP (interactive, constructive, active, passive) framework for student engagement and how it manifests in various active learning formats. This framework explains how certain student behaviors during active learning evoke deeper processing of ideas and, thus, lead to better student learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anastasio, D., & Ingram, E. L. (2018). Better questions: A learning opportunity (IDEA Paper #71). Retrieved from the IDEA Center website: http://www.ideaedu.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/IDEA%20Papers/IDEA%20Papers/IDEA_Paper_71.pdf

  • Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, P., & Andersen, J. (1982). Nonverbal immediacy in instruction. In L. Barker (Ed.), Communication in the classroom (pp. 98–120). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2011). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10, 394–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J. A., Ebert-May, D., & Burns, D. J. (1999). The development of a college biology self- efficacy instrument for non-majors. Science Education, 83(4), 397–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkley, E. F. (2010). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkley, E. F., Major, C. H., & Cross, K. P. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D., Allain, R. J., Bonham, S. W., Dancy, M. H., & Risley, J. S. (2007). Student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. In E. Redish & P. Cooney (Eds.), Research- based reform of university physics (pp. 1–42). College Park: American Association of Physics Teachers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonwell, C. C., & Eisen, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHE–ERIC Higher Education Rep. No. 1). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buskist, w., Busler, J. N., & Kirby, L. A. (2018). Rules of (student) engagement. In J. E. Groccia & W. Buskist (Eds.), Student engagement: A multidimensional perspective. New directions in teaching and learning (Vol. 154, pp. 55–63). Walden: Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh, A. J., AragĂłn, O. R., Chen, X., Couch, A., Durham, F., Bobrownicki, A., Hanauer, D. I., & Graham, M. J. (2016). Student buy-in to active learning in a college science course. CBE- Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh, A. J., Chen, X., Bathgate, M., Frederick, J., Hanauer, D. I., & Graham, M. J. (2018). Trust, growth mindset, and student commitment to active learning in a college science course. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 17(1), ar10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., & Menekse, H. (2015). Chapter 21: Dialogue patterns in peer collaboration that promote learning. In L. B. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 263–274). Washington, DC: AERA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kang, S., Lancaster, M., Levy, R., Li, N., McEldoon, K. L., Stump, G. S., Wylie, R., Xu, D., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP theory of cognitive engagement into practice. Cognitive Science, 42, 1777–1832. 

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, K. M., & Brownell, S. E. (2016). Coming out in class: Challenges and benefits of active learning in a biology classroom for LGBTQIA students. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(3), ar37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, K. M., Haney, B., Krieg, A., & Brownell, S. E. (2017). What’s in a name? The importance of students perceiving that an instructor knows their name in a high-enrollment biology classroom. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 16(1), ar8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, A., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2008). Biology in bloom: Implementing Bloom’s Taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 7, 368–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, B. G. (2009). Tools for teaching (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eddy, S. L., & Hogan, K. A. (2014). Getting under the hood: How and for whom does increasing course structure work? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13, 453–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eddy, S. L., Brownell, S. E., Thummaphan, P., Lan, M.-C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2015). Caution, student experience may vary: Social identities impact a student’s experience in peer discussion. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2016). Teaching and learning STEM: A guide for faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fencl, H., & Scheel, K. (2004). Pedagogical approaches, contextual variables, and the development of student self-efficacy in undergraduate physics courses. In J. Marx, S. Franklin, & K. Cummings (Eds.), 2003 physics education research conference: AIP conference proceedings (Vol. 720, pp. 173–176). Melville: AIP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fencl, H., & Scheel, K. (2005). Engaging students: An examination of the effects of teaching strategies on self-efficacy and course climate in a nonmajors physics course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(1), 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisby, B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Instructor-student and student-student rapport in the classroom. Communication Education, 59(2), 146–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gravett, E. O. (2018). Note-taking during discussion: Using a weekly reflection assignment to motivate students to learn from their peers. College Teaching, 66(2), 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332(6034), 1213–1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, J. J. B., Harrison, D. M., & Meyertholen, A. (2016). Effective student teams for collaborative learning in an introductory university physics course. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12, 010138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, L. C. (2015). Teaching undergraduate science: A guide to overcoming obstacles to student learning. Sterling: Stylus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, L. C., Anderson, E. C., Carpenter, T. S., Cui, L., Feeser, E. A., & Gierasch, T. M. (2017). Using clickers for deliberate practice in five large science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(2), 22–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, M. C. (2006). The effect of grading incentive on student discourse in peer instruction. American Journal of Physics, 74(8), 689–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, M. C., & Willoughby, S. (2011). Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: What you have not heard might surprise you. American Journal of Physics, 79, 123–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, M. C., Barbieri, F., & Garcia, P. (2008). What are they talking about? Lessons learned from a study of peer instruction. Astronomy Education Review, 7(1), 37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, J. L., & Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Hays, E. R., & Ivey, M. J. (1991). College teacher misbehaviors: What students don’t like about what teachers say and do. Communication Quarterly, 39(4), 309–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student-faculty interaction in research universities: Differences in student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 437–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, J. K., Wise, S. B., & Southard, K. M. (2013). Understanding clicker discussions: Student reasoning and the impact of instructional cues. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 645–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, D. L., Farmer, J. K., & Peterson, E. (2014). Is peer interaction necessary for optimal active learning? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13, 243–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (2004). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Sterling: Stylus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 645–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, S. B., & Tanner, K. D. (2013). “What if students revolt?” Considering student resistance: Origins, options, and opportunities for investigation. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 586–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svinicki, M. D. (2016). Motivation: An updated analysis (IDEA Paper #59). Retrieved from the IDEA Center website: http://www.ideaedu.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/IDEA%20Papers/IDEA%20Papers/PaperIDEA_59.pdf

  • Tharayil, S., Borrego, M., Prince, M., Nguyen, K. A., Shekhar, P., Finelli, C. J., & Waters, C. (2018). Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, 7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theobald, E. J., Eddy, S. L., Grunspan, D. Z., Wiggins, B. L., & Crowe, A. J. (2017). Student perception of group dynamics predicts individual performance: Comfort and equity matter. PLoS One, 12(7), e0181336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, B. L., Eddy, S. L., Grunspan, D. Z., & Crowe, A. J. (2017a). The ICAP active learning framework predicts the learning gains observed in intensely active classroom experiences. AERA Open, 3(2), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, B. L., Eddy, S. L., Wener-Fligner, L., Freisem, K., Grunspan, D. Z., Theobald, E. J., Timbrook, J., & Crowe, A. J. (2017b). ASPECT: A survey to assess student perspectives of engagment in an active-learning classroom. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 16(2), ar32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, A. K., Galloway, R., Hardy, J., & Sinclair, C. (2014). Analyzing learning during peer instruction dialogues: A resource activation framework. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 10(2), 020107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, K. K., & Talanquer, V. (2013). Effects of different types of small-group activities on students’ conversations. Journal of Chemical Education, 90, 1123–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, P., Ding, L., & Mazur, E. (2017). Peer instruction in introductory physics: A method to bring about positive changes in students’ attitudes and beliefs. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(1), 010104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty Development Center, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Linda C. Hodges

Authors
  1. Linda C. Hodges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda C. Hodges .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Biological Sciences and Science Education, California State University, Chico, CA, USA

    Joel J. Mintzes

  2. Science Learning Associates, Wrightsville Beach, NC, USA

    Joel J. Mintzes

  3. Department of Biological Sciences and Center for STEM Education, California State University, Fresno, CA, USA

    Emily M. Walter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hodges, L.C. (2020). Student Engagement in Active Learning Classes. In: Mintzes, J.J., Walter, E.M. (eds) Active Learning in College Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33599-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33600-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation